from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/ So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more — to religion itself.
A lot of religious giving, then, is self-serving, in the guise of helping others. Often, the donations benefit their faith.
The truth is that people give to charity at just about the same rate, regardless of religious or political affiliation.
Originally posted by apathist You forgot to read the article. For example
[quote]from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/ So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 6 ...[text shortened]... ] give to charity at just about the same rate, regardless of religious or political affiliation.
Most charities are religious based and most studies I've seen show that the majority of people who give are religious by nature.
Now you can argue that their "giving" is not going to the poor like it should, but then, government is a far worse offender in this regard.
Most charities I've read about take in more money than they give out. It's just the nature of the beast. That is why I think that giving ones own time and money directly to the poor is preferable.
One of the variables that confuses the issue are people who say they are religious and those who actually practice their faith. There is a big difference I think most studies do not take into account. If you separate the two you will find a wider gap in giving and nonliving among the religious.
Originally posted by whodey Most charities I've read about take in more money than they give out.
Most charities do not try to give out money. If you just want to give money to the poor, then give it directly. Charities try to help the poor in other ways. They aren't necessarily correct that that is the best way to help, but it is very much the prevailing view.
In fact, I am surprised that you didn't know that.
Various family members are or have been involved in charity organisations and I don't think any of those organisations are in the practice of giving cash donations. For example, an orphanage needs teachers, care takers, electricity, building repairs, school fees, clothes, uniforms etc etc. No cash is given to the children.
Originally posted by twhitehead Most charities do not try to give out money. If you just want to give money to the poor, then give it directly. Charities try to help the poor in other ways. They aren't necessarily correct that that is the best way to help, but it is very much the prevailing view.
In fact, I am surprised that you didn't know that.
Various family members are or have ...[text shortened]... ity, building repairs, school fees, clothes, uniforms etc etc. No cash is given to the children.
I would venture to say that most who help the poor directly also do not give out cash directly.
Most I know either buy them something to eat or work at a food pantry etc. There is no middle man to take a cut.
I'm surprised you did not know that.
Money given directly to the poor often goes towards drugs/alcohol etc.
Originally posted by twhitehead What does it mean? What do you measure as 'money given to the poor'?
What makes you think that is the best way to help the poor?
Money given to help the poor does not necessarily mean they are giving money directly to the poor.
Originally posted by whodey I would venture to say that most who help the poor directly also do not give out cash directly.
Most I know either buy them something to eat or work at a food pantry etc. There is no middle man to take a cut.
I'm surprised you did not know that.
Money given directly to the poor often goes towards drugs/alcohol etc.
Anything to help you feel better about never giving your spare change to those who need it most. Most homeless are in a dire situation, and you fomenting such an untrue stereotype is often fatal for these people. If you're gonna refuse to help these people, the least you could do is not lie to convince others not to help them, too.
Do you still say helping the unfortunate is a foundationally Christian thing to do? Well, judging from what you're saying, apparently not.
Originally posted by whodey I would venture to say that most who help the poor directly also do not give out cash directly.
Most I know either buy them something to eat or work at a food pantry etc. There is no middle man to take a cut.
I'm surprised you did not know that.
Money given directly to the poor often goes towards drugs/alcohol etc.
Well, when I find I can afford to give a beggar some money I take the view that it's their moral responsibility to spend it wisely. I've done all I realistically can and if they don't, well you must have read the parable of the sower.
Originally posted by DeepThought Well, when I find I can afford to give a beggar some money I take the view that it's their moral responsibility to spend it wisely. I've done all I realistically can and if they don't, well you must have read the parable of the sower.
I have on occasion asked such individuals if I can get them anything from the bakery. (A sandwich or such). Although I agree with you to some extent that it is their responsibility how they spend the money (if you elect to give it to them) but by buying something for them I retain control of what that money is used for. (Perhaps this is for my own peace of mind that i am not helping to fuel a drug habit or the like).
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I have on occasion asked such individuals if I can get them anything from the bakery. (A sandwich or such). Although I agree with you to some extent that it is their responsibility how they spend the money (if you elect to give it to them) but by buying something for them I retain control of what that money is used for. (Perhaps this is for my own peace of mind that i am not helping to fuel a drug habit or the like).
Has it ever occurred to you that in asserting your control over what they spend it on, this disrespects their humanity? You control their spending, and so you retain authority over them. I'm sure that a lot of them might reject your help because of the strings that come with it. Why can't we just treat people like people, regardless what their social status is?? A man is already ashamed of being reduced to begging for help, but for people to exert their authority over him by providing conditions on their gift (I sometimes call it a loan, so we can both pretend that they'll pay me back), it reduces the man to less than a man (women seem to have less of a problem with it, men especially chafe at ceding control to another). These people have self-respect, too. They aren't usually in their situation because they want to be. I deal with homeless people nearly every day, and I can see the thankfulness in their eyes when I go beyond how most people treat them and treat them like actual human beings. It is indeed the least we can do for them. I ask their name and call them by their name. I don't patronize them by calling them 'sir' or 'ma'am' unless they're significantly older than me. I can't count how many I've had to drag into my car and take them to the hospital. I've had to give some CPR. Some make it, some don't. But I treat them all with respect. And when I do give someone money to buy food, I don't treat them like a child who can't be trusted with the money.
Originally posted by Suzianne ...I treat them all with respect. And when I do give someone money to buy food, I don't treat them like a child who can't be trusted with the money.
Do you think you have ever given any money to alcoholics who then used it to buy booze instead of eating a square meal?
Originally posted by Suzianne Has it ever occurred to you that in asserting your control over what they spend it on, this disrespects their humanity? You control their spending, and so you retain authority over them. I'm sure that a lot of them might reject your help because of the strings that come with it. Why can't we just treat people like people, regardless what their social sta ...[text shortened]... someone money to buy food, I don't treat them like a child who can't be trusted with the money.
A free sandwich doesn't come with strings. (And is definitely not a loan). And there are no conditions attached. I simply stop and ask them if I can get them anything from the bakery. - They can answer yes or no without any disrespect to their humanity.
Indeed, most homeless charities discourage giving money to beggars. (Would advise doing a little reading on the subject).
Originally posted by Suzianne Has it ever occurred to you that in asserting your control over what they spend it on, this disrespects their humanity? You control their spending, and so you retain authority over them. I'm sure that a lot of them might reject your help because of the strings that come with it. Why can't we just treat people like people, regardless what their social sta ...[text shortened]... someone money to buy food, I don't treat them like a child who can't be trusted with the money.
Why not let the giver make that judgment?
You accused me of not helping the poor by buying them food?
The new paganism
26 Sep '16 08:49
Back to Top